MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096017385 · doi:10.33387/dpi.v3i2.139

PEMBELAJARAN INKUIRI MODEL ALBERTA UNTUK MENINGKATKAN KEMAMPUAN BERPIKIR KREATIF MATEMATIS SISWA SMP

2016· article· en· W3096017385 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muhamad Rizal Usman

Bibliographic record

VenueDelta-Pi Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationClass (philosophy)Creative thinkingPsychologyComputer scienceCreativityArtificial intelligenceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research is motivated by the results of previous studies which showed that the mathematical creative thinking abilities of students are still not as expected. This study focuses on the effort to determine the increase in mathematical creative thinking abilities of students as a result of the inquiry learning model of Alberta. This study is an experimental study with the entire population of one junior high school students in the city. Samples were students of class VII school. The study sample as many as 73 students, 36 students in grade 37 student experiments and the control class. Based on the analysis of data obtained conclusions: (1) achievement of creative thinking ability of students receiving mathematical model of inquiry learning Alberta better than students who received conventional learning. (2) Improving creative thinking abilities of students receiving mathematical model of inquiry learning Alberta better than students who received conventional learning. (3) there are differences in improvement of mathematical creative thinking abilities by category KAM.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDelta-Pi Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan MatematikaSame topicMathematics Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207